`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`_______________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`Patent Owner United Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`objects to the admissibility of certain evidence submitted on June 1, 2021
`
`concurrently with Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(Paper 32). Patent Owner’s objections are based on the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`(“FRE”), relevant case law, federal statute, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) Rules. Patent Owner’s objections are set forth with particularity below.
`
`EXHIBIT 1049
`
`Exhibit 1049 is described as “Affidavit of Boris Levine certifying Translation
`
`of Japanese Patent App. No. 56-122328A to Kawakami, et al., previously
`
`submitted as Ex. 1011 in Steadymed Ltd. v. United Therapeutics Corp., IPR2016-
`
`00006.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1049 under FRE 802 without exception.
`
`Exhibit 1052 is declaration testimony that is being offered for its truth but is not
`
`subject to cross examination.
`
`Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1049 as unfairly prejudicial under FRE 403. On
`
`October 27, 2020, Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1012, described as
`
`“Certified English translation of Japanese Patent App. No. 56-122328A to
`
`Kawakami, et al. (‘Kawakami’)”, for the following reasons: “Patent Owner
`
`objects to Exhibit 1012 under FRE 802, including to the extent Petitioner has
`
`asserted that the translation is a true and accurate representation of the original
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`Japanese-language patent….” (Paper 10 at page 9). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner had the opportunity to “respond to the objection by
`
`serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the
`
`objection.” Petitioner failed to respond within the allotted 10 business days and
`
`instead now seeks to belatedly cure this deficiency by introducing supplemental
`
`evidence in the form of Exhibit 1049 months after Patent Owner’s objections were
`
`served. Accordingly, Exhibit 1049 should not be admitted or considered because
`
`its filing is untimely, contravenes 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), on which Patent Owner
`
`is entitled to rely in briefing the case, and would unfairly prejudice Patent Owner.
`
`EXHIBIT 1052
`
`Exhibit 1052 is described as “Supplemental Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis,
`
`Ph.D.” Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1052 under FRE 802 as hearsay without
`
`exception. Exhibit 1052 is declaration testimony that is being offered for its truth
`
`but is not subject to cross examination.
`
`Patent Owner additionally objects to Exhibit 1052 as unfairly prejudicial under
`
`FRE 403. On October 27, 2020, Patent Owner timely objected to Exhibit 1015,
`
`described as “Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis, Ph.D.” (see Paper 10 at pages 11-
`
`13) under, among other rules, FRE 702(b) as unreliable. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b)(2), Petitioner had the opportunity to “respond to the objection by
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the
`
`objection.” Petitioner failed to timely respond and instead now seeks to cure this
`
`deficiency by introducing supplemental evidence in the form of Exhibit 1052
`
`months after Patent Owner’s objections were served. Accordingly, Exhibit 1052
`
`should not be admitted or considered because its filing is untimely, contravenes 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), and would unfairly prejudice Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770
`Patent 9,604,901
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to
`Supplemental Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Objections to Petitioner’s Supplemental Evidence Submitted with
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served on
`
`counsel of record on June 8, 2021, by filing this document through the PTAB E2E
`
`System as well as delivering a copy via email to the counsel of record for the
`
`Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`
`emilch@cooley.com
`
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`